Determining a resource allocation for controlling a facility’s equipment: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns an energy optimization system for controlling building equipment of a facility participating in a capacity market program (CMP), where the facility commits to reducing its energy load upon dispatch by a utility. The key features at issue were the CMP-specific objective function and optimization constraints, including a dispatch probability and a raw baseline, used to determine a resource allocation for controlling the facility’s equipment. The Board considered these features non-technical, as they related to financial optimization aimed at maximizing economic profit under contractual obligations.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1596/22 (Energy optimisation with Capacity Market Program/JOHNSON CONTROLS) of 9 December 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to an energy optimization system for a facility participating in a capacity market program (CMP). In a CMP, a utility company rewards a facility owner for being on standby to reduce the facility’s energy load by a predetermined amount, known as the nominated capacity value, upon receiving a dispatch notice at an unknown future time. The system generates a raw baseline from historic load data to establish the typical load of the facility. It then generates an objective function and CMP-specific constraints and optimizes the objective function to determine a resource allocation for the facility’s building equipment. The optimization incorporates the probability of receiving a dispatch from the utility, estimated based on historic weather data, historic dispatch hours, and predicted regional peak loads. The constraints ensure that the facility can reduce its load by the nominated capacity value, or by an even greater amount, when dispatched. According to the description, the objective function calculates the facility’s operating cost during CMP participation, defined as the difference between equipment operating expenses and potential CMP revenue. The resulting resource allocation specifies how the facility’s equipment should adjust its capacity, and the building equipment is controlled accordingly.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The examining division found that claim 1 of the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 4 did not involve an inventive step. The division primarily assessed inventive step starting from a generally known computing system and also referred to D1 (US 2017/103483 A1), concluding that the differences over D1 did not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The distinguishing features, namely the CMP-specific objective function and optimization constraints, were considered non-technical as they related to mathematical formulations driven by economic and financial considerations concerning the facility’s operational costs, expected revenues, and contractual obligations under the CMP. The examining division further found that merely specifying physical input parameters, such as historic load data, was insufficient to impart technical character to the generation and optimization of the objective function.

The Appellant’s arguments

1. Claim 1 had technical character as a whole because the resource allocation was used to control building equipment.
2. The resource allocation was based on technical considerations because it ensured that building equipment was controlled to satisfy both the building’s load demand and the curtailment capacity agreed with the utility, constituting a technical solution to a technical problem.
3. Unlike conventional demand response programs, a CMP does not provide a time schedule for load reduction. The invention addressed this by incorporating a dispatch probability, reducing the risk of underperformance. The probability depended on factors such as historic weather data, involving technical considerations about energy generation.
4. Participation in a CMP contributed to maintaining a stable and reliable energy grid, which constituted a technical effect.
5. The objective function was not based on business considerations. Even if the description disclosed financially motivated embodiments, claim 1 itself did not include such financial aspects. The optimization relied on physical parameters such as the facility’s historical load.

The Board’s analysis

The Board chose auxiliary request 4 as the most specific definition among the admitted requests and used D1 as the closest prior art. Like the invention, D1 concerns determining an optimal resource allocation for a facility and controlling its equipment, balancing operating costs against potential revenues from incentive-based demand-response programs. The differences over D1 were that the objective function and constraints were specifically adapted to CMP participation.

Non-technical nature of the distinguishing features

The Board found that claim 1 did not define the calculations performed by the objective function. Merely specifying inputs such as dispatch probability did not indicate what was being optimized. The constraints merely defined the optimization framework reflecting CMP requirements. According to the description, the objective function calculated the facility’s operating cost (expenses minus CMP revenues). The distinguishing features were therefore non-technical, relating to financial and economic considerations. Under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00), the objective technical problem was how to implement these non-technical optimization requirements within D1’s system, which was deemed obvious.

Responses to the Appellant’s arguments

1. Overall technical character of the claim does not mean every feature contributes to technical character. The control of building equipment is driven by a resource allocation aimed at maximizing profit, which is non-technical.
2. Claim 1 contains no features ensuring the building’s load demand is met. The only mandatory requirement, load reduction, is an administrative constraint from contractual obligations. The “balancing of interests” merely determines the most financially advantageous allocation while ensuring contractual compliance.
3. Claim 1 does not specify how the dispatch probability is determined or used. According to the description, it estimates potential penalties for underperformance, demonstrating the parameter is employed purely for financial optimization.
4. Load reduction can help lower overall grid load, but here the reduction arises from contractual obligations, not technical considerations. The claimed optimization does not itself produce any effect on the grid. Any grid stability effect results from load reduction, which is already known from D1.
5. Leaving the objective function undefined does not make it technical; it still encompasses financial optimization embodiments. A method serving no technical purpose cannot gain technical character just because it processes technical data, citing T 154/04, T 677/09, and T 2626/18.

Other requests

The main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 3, being broader than auxiliary request 4, likewise lacked inventive step. Auxiliary requests 6, 7, 7A, 8, and 9 were not admitted under Article 13(2) RPBA as they were filed less than two working days before oral proceedings without exceptional circumstances and did not address the central deficiency. Auxiliary request 5 was not admitted under Articles 12(4) and 12(6) RPBA as it was filed with the grounds of appeal without reasons, and its added features related to determining an optimal nominated capacity to maximize financial profit, which was non-technical.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Board confirmed that the CMP-specific objective function and constraints were non-technical features driven by financial optimization considerations. Under the COMVIK approach, these features were incorporated into the objective technical problem formulation, and their implementation in the system of D1 was deemed obvious. The Board emphasized that processing physical data such as historic loads or weather data does not render a fundamentally financial optimization technical, and that controlling building equipment based on a financially motivated resource allocation does not make the underlying optimization technical either. The request for remittal was also refused, as the Board found no special reasons warranting it.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1596/22 (Energy optimisation with Capacity Market Program/JOHNSON CONTROLS) of 9 December 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!